It would be nice if this guy had to reimburse Disney’s insurance company for all the legal fees and costs it took to defend this BS lawsuit. Why the winner should have to pay while the loser walks away owing nothing (assuming his lawyer was working on contingency) is beyond me. The rule should be “loser pays” so the innocent victim of a bogus lawsuit doesn’t suffer a loss just to defend themselves.

I guess the facts gave this jury a clear understanding of the cause and effect in this accident. Not having read the transcript, speculation is pointless. We don’t know if the case was bogus, or only
extremely inflated (no pun intended). Rather than an all of nothing imposition of legal fees on the
loser, I think the judge or jury should make a determination of percentage to charge, so regardless of
the verdict, a separate decision is made about whether the case ever had serious merit, and if it is found to be in essence manufactured for profit, then by all means make the loser pay the winner’s full legal costs as well as the court costs.

It should be understood that just because a plaintiff loses, doesn’t mean they had no legitimate claims. There are many reasons to lose a case. As mandatory arbitration is a large portion of today’s
legal cases, how many are aware that loser pays often is a major factor (as in a hammer) used to
deter a valid plaintiff’s calim from going to trial or full arbitration decison? When forced with the
added risk of losing $100K + if the arbitrator rules against you 51% to 49%, most plaintiffs who are
not rich will bite the poison pill and settle. The case I’m referring to involved a contractor and breach or contract claim, which while totally different from the PI claim in this story, is still very common.